craig

If minorleaguebaseball.com is to be believed (their box scores aren't always the most reliable) both Barney and Tony Thomas made their debuts today for Mesa. If that's correct, Thomas as well as Barney has signed http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=milb&t=g_box&gid=2007_07_11_rngrok_cubrok_1

I think Murton played a significant amount of RF in the minors. I don't think it was totally new. I do understand that given his weak arm, even in the minors people used him mostly in left. Floyd is poor defensively in right. I don't think they are "perfectly content with Floyd's defense in right", that's why they pull him in the 6th or 7th inning every time they have a lead. And I don't think they'be very content to plan to have somebody as bad as Floyd in right long-term. But for now, and Floyd's offense has been enough to make him the preferred overall package. For the moment. I agree that Murton's defense, now that he's gotten refreshed in right field with Iowa, is unlikely to be appreciably worse than Floyd's. I think it's a different question whether long term you'd want to plan on somebody with Murton's RF limitations being the long-term guy. For now, Murton could provide a RH pinch-hitter, a RH bat bench, and he could provide an alternative to Fontenot or Floyd in the lineup. DeRosa plays RF vs LHP, but that means Fonty starts vs LHP. Not sure how he splits Perhaps Murton could do much better. I could see a deal where vs LHP, Murton plays right, DeRosa 2nd, Theriot SS, and we don't need to either start Izzy or a LH player at any of those three spots. That might help. Long-term, I'd still at least think about trying to move Soriano to rightnext year. He's got the speed and the arm, and I'd be much more comfortable planning in guys like Murton into LF than RF. Even if Murton was to work his way to the top of the current RF pile, I think with his wea arm and outfielding limitations, GM's would be perpetually wanting to move him and get somebody better defensivley out there. But in left, if he could get back to the place where he was a professional .800+ OPS guy in left, then he might be able to settle in for a long time and be a solid contributor.

Thanks, splinter. That sounds encouraging. That sounds like enough to have a chance, if he can really throw that fast, and if he can locate the other stuff.

thanks for your scouting reports, vance. Hart was an obscure roster filler at the time, and didn't have much for results in your game. I can see why you wouldn't be analyzing him as carefully as Holliman, who'd had such a hot start. If you'd gone to a Hart game after being pitcher-of-the-month, and after more board talk about how hot he'd been recently, you'd more likely watch him more optimistically and carefully. My guess is that both of these dudes depend on location and command. Neither sounds like they have exceptional stuff. They need to use what they've got. And my guess is that neither one will impress much on a day when they aren't throwing strikes or aren't getting guys out. Hill, Lilly, and Marshall, none are overly fast. On any given day when they don't have much, any can look pretty bad. And on any given day when they are locating what they've got, any of them can look pretty good. If you see them each once, it probably depends on the particular day which will look better and which will look worse.

soapy, I'm not sure I follow. My understanding is that Hendry was so eager to get Jones off the roster that he was planning to pay $6 of Jones salary for Florida to get him off our roster before Tribune bosses nixed the deal. Your numbers show how Murton and Jones were comparably good last year and comparably good this year, except that Jones can play some center. One might well argue that the Cubs are treating Murton much more favorably, by sending him to Iowa, giving him a chance to rediscover his stroke, letting him practice his RF defense, and declining trade inquiries from San Diego. Compared to totally humiliating Jones and trying to pay $6.5 million to Florida to take Jones off our hands. I'd think that the actions suggest they are much more down on Jones than on Murton. But, major league guaranteed contracts and Tribune bosses make a difference. Not everything is based on merit in mlb.

Hart has been much more effective over the last 10 starts, dating back to may 18. Hart: 5-1, 2.90, Holliman, 2-6, 3.94 Hart, 55K/16BB/59IP, Holliman 30K/26BB/59IP. Holliman was much better in April, but since mid-May Hart has been better. http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Kevin%2520Hart&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=453954 http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Mark%2520Holliman&pos=P&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=460089 They are similar in age, Holliman 10 months younger. My understanding is that Holliman is pretty much a soft-tossing finesse guy. Not sure on Hart, one guy saw him on a terrible day and he was also a soft-tosser. I thought a different report suggested that while his fastball was not exceptionally fast, that it wasn't bad either. vance, having seen them both, how would you compare the two in terms of fastball velocity and fastball stuff? If Hart is bigger and if in fact he does throw harder (not sure if that's true, but if it is...), has better K-stuff (55K to 30K over equal recent innings), and has better control (16 walks to 26 walks), ane has been pitching better especially recently, it looks like Hart may be more deserving for the moment. And may (possibly, not sure if it's true at all) have better stuff and better long-term potential besides.

I agree with most of that. Mine was "loaded", obvious hyperbole. I think it's silly to say that a guy can't hit if he's only playing half-time, that he needs to play full time. I think it's silly to blame the GM and the manager and everybody else but the player if he's playing half-time and he can't produce. Either blame nobody (these things happen, it can happen to anybody), or else blame the player. But I think all the Murton-victim-blame-it-all-on-management is kind of silly and unrealistic. Murton had the total opportunity in first half April, he stumbled it away. he had the total opportunity in second-half April, he stumbled it away. he had the total opportunity in first half May, he stumbled it away. he had the opportunity 2nd half May, he stumbled it away. it's too bad, for him and for us fans. My basic argument is againt the idea that he was mistreated and that management obviously is to blame and bungled it all. Opportunity knocked for two months, and he couldn't answer. He's a younger guy with options, Jones has a guaranteed contract, that's the way the business works. O well, go down and play and get your stroke fixed, Matt. Opportunity will knock again if you can fix it. It just won't be as wide a window of opportunity next time. Given the narrower window, if posters want to argue that half-time isn't enough AB for him to produce, then he's not likely to come back with a better window than he had the first time. If management made the window too small for success in April and May, I doubt that window will be any wider when he comes back, unless he pushes it wider by producing when he gets the chance to play. If nobody is arguing that he can't hit with half-time opportunity, then don't fix all the blame on management that he didn't hit for the two months of half-time opportunity that he got. If others are arguing that he never hits till July, then it's smart to send him down till such time when he will produce. Maybe we should do that every year as long as he's got options left? (I don't think that's true, but if that's the argument...) Is management smart? No. But I'm not sure the Murton case is the prover. Finally, as to loaded statements: I said that his half-time play was a fair-bit of opportunity. You reason that my statement is extreme, loaded. But then you say that he was "barely playing at all"! Half-time action is barely playing at all? That is loaded and extreme. And I assume is an intentional exaggeration. So we appear to be using the same kind of hyperbole in our argumentation, no?

Well, whatever, it's semantics. Obviously 350 isn't 500, 350 isn't full-time and isn't really even "regular". But in my opinion 300+ is "quite a bit". The proration shows that relative to the games in April and May, he was playing at least half of the time. There are several angles on this. 1) No man can produce at all as a hitter unless he is playing full-time, or "regular", or "a lot", and half-time isn't enough. 2) A guy can be playing half the time and maintain a good hitting stroke. I'm obviously suggesting the latter perspective, and you guys the former. I'm concerned about your perspective, if it's true. Because I don't think Murton is likely to be brought back up to the Cubs and instantly be given full-time regular every-day-starter status. He's going to have to prove himself again, just like he did in 2005. If he can't hit until he's gettng 90% of the starts, if that's true than he'll likely never hit for the Cubs. Which I'd find very disappointing. But if I'm right, and he can hit in less than every-day mode when he's got his stroke in shape, then he's got a chance to hit for the Cubs. He can get his stroke fixed in Iowa, get called up, and get the frequency of AB's that he got in April and June. I think that if he's sharp when he comes in, that those will be enough AB's to stay sharp, and to stay productive. If he's productive in the window of opportunity that is provided for him, then his opportunities will increase and that window will expand. I think that's entirely possible. But only if the guy has the ability to sustain productivity even if he doesn't have the luxury of starting every day, at least at the beginning. If he produces in the chances that he gets, he may in due time earn his way back to regular status. But barring an injury to Soriano or Floyd, that isn't going to happen instantly. He's going to have to do something when he gets the chance. You guys are more pessimistic, so maybe you're right and Murton can't do anything but stink if he can't start every day or almost. But I'm hoping that he can produce even if he isn't starting every day. And that someday he might work his way back into a position where he is an every-day starter, or somewhat close, and we'll be happy about it. But, even if that never happens, I still think that he could become a valuable Cub if he can show up and become a .300-hitting, .360-OBP, .800-OPS 300-AB platoon guy and 4th outfielder. One other note: Murton hasn't really kicked it in and sustained excellence at Iowa for an extended period. Over his last ten games, he's hitting .256, despite 4 of them being at hitter-friendly Albuquerque. So it's not like the regular Iowa AB have instantly given him the regularity that he needs to hit like vintage Brian Giles. He's had some good games, but then not been able to sustain excellent there. But, I'm hoping that may be changing. After going 2-19 (both singles) with 1 walk and 6 K's over the previous 5 games, over his last five games he's gone 8-20 with only 1 K and with 5 XBH. I think this 5-game streak is his longest hitting streak since going down, and I think maybe the first time he's had multi-hit games back-to-back. Of his 13 XBH, 5 have come in the last five games. May just be an on-again-off-again fluke, and he'll hit nothing but groundouts for the rest of the week. But there's a chance that maybe he's rediscovering his stroke, and being able to drive the ball again, on line instead of so many groundballs. Will be interesting to watch over the next few games if he can keep his recent little run going. If so, I'd be more interested in calling him back up than I've been at any time since he got sent down.

I think you're crazy if you actually believe that. Apparently. In April and May, Murton had over 100 AB's. So if he'd kept getting the April/May playing time he did receive, he'd have ended up with well over 300 at-bats on the season. A guy who's getting 300-360 AB, in my book that's quite a bit of playing time. And that's plenty to maintain a good stroke, if you've got a good stroke going. If you think it's crazy to consider a 300-350 AB pace to be "quite a bit" of playing time", how many AB's would you think a guy needs before it's not crazy to consider it "quite a bit of playing time"?

Good question, and I can't really answer it. I do think that trading him would probably be a mistake. For two reasons. 1st, I doubt that Cedeno is going to nab us the part that puts us over the top this year. 2nd, after this year comes next year. This year, Cedeno is blocked by Izturis, for contractual reasons. After this season Izturis's contract expires. That will unblock Cedeno and provide room for him. If you trade Cedeno now, then this winter we'll be sitting with Theriot and nobody else. Theriot has looked surprisingly acceptable as a share-time SS, but I don't want to count on him being a 160-start guy, either offensively or defensively. So if you trade Cedeno, then the GM will need to go outside to acquire a SS this winter. Good SS's are expensive and hard to find. That will be expensive, very possibly frustrating/disappointing, and we may end up with a Neifi-type being the best we can get. If you keep Cedeno, I think a GM could figure that Theriot/Cedeno together might cover SS. Can save his time/money/prospects to spend on other needs. (Catcher, CF, RF, relief, rotation...) It's also possible that Cedeno won't need to wait till Iz's contract expires for the Cubs to make a change.

On Murton: 1. I think he got quite a bit of playing time this year. Buthe didn't get many hits, so his playing time decreased. 2. there are some indications that he may be starting to get rolling again in Iowa. Most of the team at Iowa has hit .300, so compared to the team his numbers are pretty average. But he may be heating up. 3. There was a reference in one of the papers that Lou thought that Murton isn't swinging the way he did in the past, when he'd been successful. Murton said he wasn't doing anything different. One of the posters seems to suggest that Lou was wrong and that now he's taking it out on Murton. I find that somewhat doubtful. I have no idea whether Lou saw something specific different and Murton wasn't willing to try to make a change. But I find it a bit hard to take Murton's side on that. The previous two years, he got hits regularly, and hit the ball hard regularly. This year he hasn't gotten very many hits, and IMO his outs were a lot weaker as well. His stats show an extreme groundball orientation this year. That has been true before, especially when he wasn't going good. But, bottom line to me is that he hasn't been producing. Does he think he's been hitting the ball with the same authority and success as he did late last year and in 2005? The results haven't been the same, that's for sure; so perhaps there is something mechanical that hasn't been the same either? 4. Murton didn't play every day when he came up with Dusty, but he hit, and earned more time. It's not like when he's going good, that he can't hit as a platoon guy. So I think his problems this year to me indicate that for whatever reason, he wasn't hitting well this year, not that he's inherently incapable of hitting in a platoon role. Or that putting him in a platoon role made him incapable of hitting. He was able to hit in a platoon role in 2005, so the fact that he couldn't hit in a platoon role this spring suggests there was something more wrong with his swing than with the platoon role itself. Hopefully he'll get his stroke fixed, and become a good platoon player again. Maybe so good that he'll earn his way back into an effective larger-than-platoon role.

Yeah, same question from me. I'd noticed that Hart was putting together some good games, and scoring more K's this month than he had earlier. Is this a no-talent who happened to stitch together a good month in a strong pitcher's league? Or does he somehow have stuff that makes him an actual prospect? So, what do we know about his actual stuff? Is he a strong arm guy? A finesse guy? None of the above?

Thanks for the research, Cal. I didn't realize you could get the bonus list for rounds that late. Interesting. 6th round money, that's not bad. Certainly any time you take a HS kid in the 6th round, you'd assume you're getting a prospect, not just a guy whose ceiling tops as an organizational guy. Hopefully as Nate suggested, Samson will fill out and get stronger in due time, and hopefully he'll end up having enough physical talent to be a useful major leaguer. And hopefully his interest and desire to learn will help him get the most out of the talent that he has.

Eric has had a nice year. He's hit some HR's, which are very helpful for batting average. He's cut down on his K's, which is very helpful for batting average. Still, he tends to get discussion because he is viewed as a talented prospect. But it's also worth keeping his Iowa performance in context. Batting average-wise, where does he sit relative to the Iowa roster? he's behind: Pie (when there), Cedeno, Koyie Hill, Geo Soto, Micah Hoffpauir, Buck Coats, Fontenot (when there). The only guys hitting for worse average are Murton (I think), Moore (who's had a really tough year), and roster-fillers like Chris Walker and the like. Maybe the Iowa Cubs have the best lineup in baseball history. But it's also possible that if everybody else is hitting .320-.380, maybe hitting .295-.300 isn't as good as we normally think? Maybe being the 7th or 8th best hitter at Iowa combined with problem defense isn't good enough to command a regular spot in the majors?

Just a note on Samson's "hefty" bonus. According to the draft threat, it was $155. That's comparable to a typical 8th-10th round HS pick, I'm guessing? Seems to me that guys like Atkins and Willis etc. got $200 or more. Whatever. No HS guy who cracks the first 10 rounds is a nobody; any HS prospect who goes in the top ten rounds and then produces gets written off, that's for sure, and any such player would merit some interest. So Samson should get some. But, neither should we be looking at his bonus as if the Cubs were paying him like a 3rd or 4th round type talent. Not that much.

Guys with options tend to go down, that's life. Hendry gave Jones and eyre their contracts. Apparently the Trib has told them he has to keep them. So Lou and Hendry may need to go forward with 23 roster spots to work with, plus Jones and Eyre. That won't be easy. That's life. Whenever you have guys with guaranteed contracts, it's never really about equal competition. That's life.

I'm guessing Pie. He's really in a monster slump, and it's painful to have him in the lineup. Right now the team is trying to win games, and Pagan is contributing to some degree but at least offensively, Pie is not. At this point, I'm guessing Hendry and Lou are more interested in winning than in developing. So Pie's development is probably secondary to trying to win. And since he's auto-outed himself to the bench, his development is probably better served playing regularly in Iowa than sitting on the bench with the cubs. Obvoiusly right now we've won 7 straight, and it's natural to think about winning and getting into contention for division and/or wildcard. If next month we're back to 7 games under .500 and neither division nor wildcard still seem plausible, then the issue of winning versus development might reverse. Then maybe you bring back Pie and stick with him no matter how badly he hits, if winning and losing don't matter anymore.

Would it be fair to say that Jake Fox might makes Barrett look like a gold-glove defensive catcher?

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/story/89348.html Pawelek is hurt after all. He broke his arm and is out for the season. Rotation is Albuquerque, Andrew McCormick, Alberto Cabrera, Chris Huseby and left-hander Dustin Sasser. So, looks like three non-prospect roster fillers in Albuquerque, McCormick, and Sasser. If there is going to be any jazz in that rotation as currently constituted, it will have to come from Cabrera and Huseby. The Peoria reports didn't have Albuquerque throwing very hard, basically just average, he's had no K-stuff so nothing noteworthy for breaking stuff, and his results at Peoria were dismal. May do better at Boise, but looks to be a relatively low-ceiling roster filler.

Cal, thanks for the notes. In a recent Az Phil note, he mentioned Tolentino hitting 96. Guzman and Felix as Aram/Harvey types is interesting. Hopefully Guzman will have the extraordinary hitting talent that Aram does. (Aram's body with Dopirak hitting skills wouldn't get him far, obviously; nor Harvey's tools with harvey's hitting skills.) Hopefully they'll be the freak Cub Latin position signs who can hit. Iknow that no-hit catcher Reyes got to AA. But if I'm not forgetting anybody, I think Pie and Cedeno are the only Latin position prospects during Fleita's 10-years running the Latin operation that have shown any hitting skills above A-ball. Would be cool to come up with a Latin position prospect, but obviously our Latin talent evaluators don't have a real proven track record in projecting hitters. Many of Fleita's favorites have been weeded out by low-A.

Curious with the Pawelek stuff. I wonder about his health. You'd think that if the Cubs or the Boise club told the Idaho Statesman about the team, and the story mentions Pawelek, it would seem likely that they listed him or mentioned him to the newspaper. So maybe he is there. Or maybe he's sort of going to be there when he's ready, but he's disabled or something? Beats me. Thanks for your notes about spring training observations. What was Huseby's injury issues this spring? More arm problems, or what? Glad to hear he was looking somewhat better down the stretch. In terms of draft picks and roster stuff, Guyer (?), the 1st day outfielder from Virginia, I think Wilken said that he's injured and won't play this summer. But that Wilken doesn't think the injury is anything serious long-term. So I don't expect him. According to CubReporter, or whatever that's called, I believe Ty Wright has already signed. Could go straight to Peoria, I suppose, but my play for Boise.

Cal, I agree, I wasn't expecting Tolentino or Cabrera at Boise. Have you heard something favorable about Garcia? I haven't heard anything to suggest he's any prospect at all, much less a high-ceiling one. They used him as a reliever last year in DSL, even though he was 18 for much of the year, and he was wild in relief. He's actually back in DSL again this year, and again has only been used as a spot reliever. (I think the guys who either have the better arms or who project better tend to get more of the starts down there, as we saw last year with Cabrera and Acosta. You mention Guzman and Perez looking intriguing. What do you know about them and what is intriguing? Were these guys who, like Suarez and Pie and Alfredo and Zambrano, even if not necessarily to the same price tag, got signing bonuses that were more substantial and mark them as prospects? If so, do you know how much they got? Or did you get something favorable about them from seeing them or some other source? (Az Phil?) Do you know how old or big they are or whatever? Neither Guzman nor Perez has played for the DSL team thus far, nor has Suarez. So I think it's safe to say that they'll all start out at mesa. DSL is already a couple weeks into it, so anybody healthy who's gotten sent there should have been there by now. So the fact that Guzman and Perez are starting straight out in the states is consistent with them being viewed by the Cubs as more promising than the average Latin guy they sign.

Thanks, Cal. These initial Boise rosters are obviously always very fluid. Lambert is the only draftee from the first ten rounds on that roster. that could change soon enough. Some of the guys who hadn't signed until this week could show up in a week or two. Will be interesting to see whether Pawelek is or isn't there, if so whether he's in the rotation or not, and then of course whether he can actually get anybody out or actually has stuff to sustain interest. There were three names that surprised me on that roster: Huseby, Cabrera, and Tolentino. I have tended to view Cabrera and Acosta as being comparable guys (about the same list size, similarities in stats last year), and Phil had comments suggesting that Tolentino was not in their class. So if two were going to make it, I'd assumed Acosta would beat Tolentino. Second, I thought they might have enough senior signs and late-round college leftover guys so that none of these 18-year-old dominicans would need to skip straight to Boise. Hopefully it suggests that Cabrera and Tolentino have made some progress. But, it might also be that they are temps until some of the college pitchers sign and are ready, and Cabrera and/or Tolentino will be back at Mesa by the time they open. A friend who saw Huseby in spring training said he looked really wild. I recall Az Phil reporting a game and Huseby was awful. So I'd anticipated that he was not doing so well and would be likely to repopen in Mesa. So I'm surprised to see him with Boise. Hopefully he's gotten things under control a bit, and he'll be up to it. We shall see.

Perfect Game also had a scouting report on Vitters. Rawnsley didn't write vitters report, he wrote the Thomas report. But the guy who wrote the Vitters report referred to his power as "prodigious". Again, I would infer the possibiity of hitting more than 20-25 HR's per year. In that scout's opinion, of course.

Splinter, thanks much for the updates on the signings. Much appreciated. Keep em coming as you can. Certainly Barney, Wright, Hardman, and Smith have done well in the college playoffs.